Mannerisms

Intel has a curious way of responding to these anti-competition proceedings. To the FTC's investigation it commented: "The evidence that this industry is fiercely competitive and working is compelling", as if it had never consulted a lawyer on the issue who would have advised Intel that it is not competition that is illegal, but the use of unfair business practices whilst holding a dominant market position that is illegal.

Disingenuous? Moi?

Similarly Intel's chairman, Craig Barrett said he found Intel's conviction in Korea "perplexing". These investigations have been going on for years, five or six in some cases, and Intel has been found guilty in Japan. Surely Barrett must have appreciated that there was at least some case to answer if Japan, Korea, Europe and the New York Attorney-General had found enough evidence to mount investigations. He must have been briefed on all this. How can he be 'perplexed'?

And Intel's lawyer, Bruce Sewell, accused the European charges as being based on selective use of evidence, and the decision of the Korean authorities as not supported by the evidence. Again, these are curious responses if Intel is innocent. Why not come out with it and say:

We did this, it is wrong, and we will stop doing it.

Or

We did not do it, and can prove it.

To say it's perplexed, or that the authorities have misinterpreted the evidence, is behaving like an ostrich with its head in the sand.

And its arse exposed.